Tribunal awards compensation to TV personality

The Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustices has recommended that three individuals be awarded compensation of Lm5,000 between them, having found that they had sustained an injustice.

The tribunal, presided over by Magistrate Michael Mallia, upheld a fourth case and recommended that a licence be issued in favour of the aggrieved party.

However, five other cases were dismissed when the tribunal found that it could not uphold the applications for a remedy.

Television personality Eileen Montesin had filed her application in the tribunal against Maltacom plc (formerly Telemalta) and against Public Broadcasting Services Ltd (formerly Xandir Malta). She claimed she had sustained an injustice and had been discriminated against in 1987.

After hearing the evidence produced the tribunal concluded in Montesin's favour. Magistrate Mallia found that Montesin had, on the change in government of 1987, been discriminated against because of her political opinions.

The tribunal concluded that respondents had immediately stopped all Montesin's programmes and that she had not been seen or heard on public broadcasting and was boycotted for nine years.

However, the situation was now different, for Montesin enjoyed good relations with PBS.

The tribunal therefore recommended that both respondents pay Montesin Lm500 each by way of compensation.

In another ruling the tribunal upheld an application filed by Charles Buttigieg against AirMalta Co. Ltd and ordered the company to pay applicant Lm1,000 in compensation.

Buttigieg claimed that he had sustained an injustice between 1988 and 1997 when he had not been allocated work that was appropriate to his grade and when he had not been provided with facilities to work.

Buttigieg also claimed he had been bypassed for promotion.

The tribunal found that Buttigieg, who was in a managerial grade with Air Malta, had been transferred many times on his place of work. Not all of these transfers were in applicant's or in the company's interest.

The tribunal was of the opinion that it was not good for the company or for an employee in a managerial grade to be transferred to departments where there was no work for him to do or else to be allocated work that ought to have been done by a person of a lower grade.

Buttigieg had been discriminated against, though the tribunal noted that there were notes in his personnel record stating that he had been difficult at times with the company's clients.

Magistrate Mallia said he was not of the opinion that Buttigieg ought to be given retroactive promotion and he ordered AirMalta to pay Buttigieg Lm1,000 in compensation.

In a third ruling the tribunal upheld an application filed by Joseph Fiorentino against Malta Information Technology and Training Services Ltd (MITTS) and recommended that Fiorentino be given retroactive promotion to the grade of project manager with effect from 1995.

In default the company was to pay Fiorentino Lm3,000 by way of compensation.

Applicant claimed he had sustained an injustice as he had been deprived of promotion between 1987 and 1995 and in particular when he was not appointed to the post of project manager in 1995.

The tribunal noted, after hearing all the evidence produced, that when Fiorentino was interviewed for this post, the selection board had totally ignored his vast experience in the field and his professional qualifications.

It was true that Fiorentino was not a university graduate and that he did not have A levels, however he had obtained other qualifications that ought to have been considered by the board.

Fiorentino was therefore to be given retroactive promotion or Lm3,000 in compensation.

The tribunal proceeded, in a fourth ruling, to uphold an application filed by Philip Abdilla against the Prime Minister, the Police Commissioner, the Malta Transport Authority, the Ministry for Ports and Transport and the Malta Maritime Authority.

Abdilla claimed he had sustained an injustice when the competent authorities had failed to implement a previous tribunal ruling.

He claimed that prior to the 1987 change of administration he, together with nine other persons, had applied for and been allocated, licences to transport tourists from Wied Iz-Zurrieq to the Blue Grotto and back.

The issue of these permits had been suspended and after the change of government 17 licences were issued, though not to Abdilla.

He stated that he had filed proceedings in the tribunal and had obtained a favourable decision in the sense that he had been discriminated against on political grounds.

This notwithstanding, the authorities had failed to issue the necessary orders for the licences to be issued in his favour.

Magistrate Mallia declared in his ruling that the Prime Minister's office had, in 1992, called upon the Police Commissioner to implement the previous tribunal's ruling and to issue Abdilla with a licence.

When the licence was processed it resulted that Abdilla was in receipt of an invalidity pension with effect from January 1987 as he had been boarded out from work on the grounds of permanent incapacity.

It was this factor that had stalled the processing of Abdilla's licence.

The authorities had been willing to comply with the previous tribunal ruling, said the court, but had failed to do so as Abdilla was not capable of work.

However, although this was a logical reason, Magistrate Mallia declared that it was now common for licences to be inherited from one generation to the next or even to be transferred.

Abdilla had also declared in the course of the proceedings that he was ready to renounce his invalidity pension, if he were issued the licence, so that he would operate the boat service.

The tribunal ordered the Malta Maritime Authority to issue a licence to Abdilla on the condition that Abdilla renounces his pension with immediate effect if he operated the service personally himself.

In five other cases the tribunal dismissed applicants' claims and found that they had not suffered any discrimination.

Paul Grixti had filed an application against Malta International Airport plc claiming that he had sustained an injustice between 1992 and 1995 when he had been passed over for promotion as he was a shop steward and GWU activist.

Magistrate Mallia declared that although Grixti had no difficulties in carrying out his work as customer care officer, this did not automatically mean that he was to be considered for promotions if he was not technically or academically qualified for the post.

It further resulted that although Grixti had applied for the post of customer care officer he had not, within the period stipulated in the law governing the jurisdiction of the tribunal, applied for any other post.

Nor could he have done so as there were no applications available for posts above his existing grade.

His application was therefore dismissed.

Magistrate Mallia also dismissed an application filed by Albert E. Portelli against the Armed Forces of Malta and ruled that Portelli's claim was unfounded.

Portelli, a major in the army, had claimed that he had unjustly been deprived of a promotion and of adjustments to his pension.

He also claimed compensation for losses of allowances.

The tribunal noted that Portelli had claimed that he was denied promotion to the post of Senior Air Traffic Controller (SATCO) in an unjust manner.

The post of air traffic control was one of the most important areas in civil aviation and no compromises could be made on the capacities and qualities of the applicant individuals.

It resulted from the evidence produced that although Portelli had qualifications and seniority he could not have been appointed to the post of SATCO as he was not emotionally prepared to assume the responsibilities involved.

Portelli's application was therefore dismissed.

Another application filed by Andrew Buhagiar against the National Tourism Organisation Malta (NTOM) was also dismissed by Magistrate Mallia.

Buhagiar had submitted that he was discriminated against when he was not promoted to the post of accounts clerk.

Magistrate Mallia however concluded that Buhagiar could not expect a promotion to this post when he did not have the requisite qualifications at the time.

The court found that respondent had acted correctly in Buhagiar's regard and had not committed an injustice against him.

Magistrate Mallia then dismissed an application filed by Louis Galea against the Health Department in which Galea claimed that he had sustained financial loss between June 1987 and 1989 when he had not been awarded increments following a pension.

He also claimed that he had been forced to renounce to a promotion in order to benefit from more favourable working conditions.

However, the tribunal noted that Galea had accepted a promotion to the post of cook.

Subsequently, the department had reduced his working hours from 46 to 40 hours per week in conformity with this new grade.

This reduction constituted a change to Galea's working conditions, which was a matter that did not fall within the competence of this tribunal.

Galea's application was therefore dismissed.

The tribunal also dismissed an application filed by Joseph Boffa against the Director of Public Libraries.

Boffa claimed he had sustained an injustice when he was no longer allowed to work on Saturdays between November 1991 and October 1993.

Magistrate Mallia noted that it resulted from the evidence produced that Boffa was a difficult man to get along with in the workplace and found it very difficult to relate in a positive manner to the 50 personnel at the Public Library despite his very good qualifications.

The Education Department had described Boffa as a energetic man who had built up a public library system but who had a difficult character that antagonised his colleagues.

The tribunal found that Boffa's transfer to the Bibliotheca at Valletta was justified in the circumstances and that it was not discriminatory.